Gujarat High Court
Joshi Hashmukhbhai Partshottambhai vs State Of Gujarat on 19 April, 2018
Author: R.Subhash Reddy
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 383 of 2018
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3167 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2018
==========================================================
JOSHI HASHMUKHBHAI PARTSHOTTAMBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:
MR DHAVAL D VYAS for the APPELLANTS(s) No(s): 1 - 29 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP for the RESPONDENT(S) No. 1 MR DIPEN DESAI for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 6 - 7 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Date : 19/04/2018 CAV ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
1. Present appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the oral order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3167 of 2018 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the present respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
2. It is the case of the petitioners - original respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that they are traders, operating in the market area of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sinor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APMC') and are regularly Page 1 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER paying market cess to the said APMC. Election of the said APMC came to be declared by the original respondent No.2 - Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance on 03.01.2018. The elections are to be held on 05.03.2018. Election programme is annexed at Annexure-B with the petition. It is stated that preliminary voters' list was published on 17.01.2018 by the Authorized Officer in which the names of the petitioners have been included in the traders' constituency. However, the Authorized Officer also included the names of original respondent Nos. 6 to 363 including the present appellants in the traders' constituency though the licences were issued to such original respondents on 24.10.2017. The petitioners, therefore, submitted objections to the Authorized Officer on 31.01.2018 and pointed out their grievance. However, the Authorized Officer rejected the objections and passed the impugned order on 07.02.2018, by which, the names of original respondent Nos. 6 to 363 were continued in the provisional voters' list. Though the said order appears to have been posted to the petitioners by RPAD, the same was not served to the petitioners and when the petitioners came to know about the same, they inquired with the office of respondent No.4. It was informed by the Authorized officer that on the objections given by the petitioners, Page 2 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER order is passed. However, when the petitioners did not receive the order, they further inquired and came to know that the Authorized Officer has already passed an order on 07.02.2018 and therefore the petitioners filed the captioned petition in which the petitioners prayed for the following main reliefs:
"(A) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by the respondent No.4 - Authorized Officer at Annexure-A to this petition.
(B) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent nos. 3 and 4 not to permit respondent nos. 6 to 363 to participate in the elections of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Sinor from traders' constituency and be pleased to direct that the names of the respondent nos. 6 to 363 be deleted from the voters' list of traders' constituency for the elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Sinor.
(C) Pending final hearing and disposal of the petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by the respondent No.4 -
Authorized Officer at Annexure-A to this petition.
(D) Pending final hearing and disposal of
Page 3 of 23
C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER
the petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the respondent nos. 6 to 363 from participating in the elections of Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Sinor from traders' constituency."
3. The learned Single Judge, by impugned oral order, allowed the said petition and thereby directed the Authorized Officer to decide the objections of the petitioners afresh in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible within stipulated time.
4. The appellants, therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, filed the present appeal.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas appearing for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Dipan Desai for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7
- original petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Shruti Pathak for the Authorized Officer.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Vyas mainly contended that the petitioners are having alternative remedy of filing Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short). It is further submitted Page 4 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER that the petition is not maintainable after the publication of final voters' list by the Authorized Officer and therefore the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order dated 07.02.2018 passed by the Authorized Officer by which the objections raised by the petitioners were rejected. It is further submitted that the order dated 07.02.2018 produced by the petitioners with the writ petition was the Photostat copy of the original, which, as such, was issued and marked to the petitioners on 07.02.2018. However, the petitioners have not explained the circumstances in which the said copy was available with them. It is further pointed out that the Authorized Officer has made a communication dated 09.03.2018, wherein, he has confirmed that after issuance of the order dated 07.02.2018, the petitioners had neither approached the said officer or had sought any information or details as alleged in the petition, nor the said officer had provided the details to the petitioners as alleged in the petition. Thus, the petitioners had not filed the petition with clean hands and therefore the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the same.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Vyas thereafter submitted that inclusion or exclusion of the Page 5 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER names in the voters' list cannot be termed as an extraordinary circumstance warranting interference by the learned Single Judge in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such questions ought to have been left open to be decided in the Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Rules. He, therefore, urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside.
8. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Vyas has placed reliance upon the order dated 22.07.2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.201 of 2016 and order dated 24.06.2015 passed in Special Civil Application No.9584 of 2015 and allied matter.
9. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Dipan Desai has supported the reasonings recorded by the learned Single Judge and at the outset submitted that as per the directions given by the learned Single Judge, the Authorized Officer has already passed an order on 22.03.2018 by which the objections submitted by the petitioners are accepted and names of most of the original respondents are deleted from the voters' list of traders' constituency. It is contended that the said consequential order passed by the Authorized Officer on 22.03.2018 is not challenged by the Page 6 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER present appellants and therefore when the order passed by the learned Single Judge is implemented, this appeal may be dismissed.
10. Learned advocate Mr. Desai thereafter submitted that the order dated 07.02.2018 was not served to the petitioners in spite of the fact that the petitioners have raised the objections before the Authorized officer, and therefore, the petition was filed at the stage when the final voters' list is to be prepared.
11. It is contended that the Market Committee passed a resolution dated 24.10.2017 and granted licences to the original respondent Nos. 6 to 363 and therefore their names are not entitled to be included in the voters' list as they are not holding licences in the previous financial year as required under Section 11(1)(ii) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The learned Single Judge has, therefore, in the facts of the present case found that the Authorized Officer has without making appropriate inquiry, included the names of the private respondents in the voters' list and while passing the order dated 07.02.2018, has not properly addressed the specific objections taken by the petitioners and therefore the learned Single Page 7 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER Judge quashed the order dated 07.02.2018 and given the directions to decide the objections of the petitioners afresh within the stipulated time limit. Therefore, no error is committed by the learned Single Judge while giving directions which have now been implemented and therefore the present appeal be dismissed.
12. Learned advocate Mr. Desai has next contended that when the substantial justice has been done by quashing and setting aside the order of the Authorized Officer and remanding the matter to the Authorized Officer, this Court may not accept the contention of the present appellants about the alternative remedy available to the petitioners.
13. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Desai has placed reliance upon the following decisions:
1. In Mrs. Margaret Lalita Samuel v.
Indo Commercial Bank Ltd., reported in AIR 1979 SC 102.
2. In Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2007(3) G.L.H. 57.
3. In Dolatbhai Prabhubhai Dumaniya v. Director-Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance and Ors., reported in 2013(2) G.L.H.157.
Page 8 of 23C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER 14. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas in
rejoinder submitted that if this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is to be set aside, then consequential order passed by the Authorized Officer on 22.03.2018 can also be set aside though the present appellants have not challenged the said order in present proceedings. It is contended that if the remand order is bad in law, then the order passed by the Authorized Officer in consequential proceedings would be non est and would necessarily have to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Vyas has placed reliance upon the following decisions:
(1) In Mangal Prasad Tamoli (Dead) by Lrs. V. Narvadeshwar Mishra (Dead) by Lrs., reported in (2005) 3 SCC 422.
(2) In State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 191.
(3) In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142.
(4) In Ritesh Tewari and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 677.
15. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the Page 9 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER material produced on record, it emerges that the original respondent No.2 - Director declared the election of APMC, Sinor on 03.01.2018. Preliminary voters' list was to be published on 17.01.2018. Provisional voters' list was to be published on 07.02.2018 and final voters' list was to be published on 19.02.2018. The election is scheduled on 05.04.2018. It is required to be noted that the licences are issued to the respondent Nos. 6 to 363 by passing a resolution on 24.10.2017 and thereafter licences were actually issued to such private respondents. The election was declared on 03.01.2018 and just prior to approximately two and half months, licences were issued to the private respondents.
16. Section 11(1)(ii) of the Act provides as under:
"11. Constitution of market committee.
(1) Every market committee shall consist of the following members, namely:
xxx xxx xxx
(ii) four members to be elected in the prescribed manner from amongst themselves by the traders holding general licenses;
17. Relying upon the aforesaid provision, the petitioners raised objections before the Authorized Officer on 31.01.2018 when the names of private respondents were included in the Page 10 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER preliminary voters' list to the effect that the persons, who were not holding licences in the previous financial year, cannot be considered eligible for being included in the voters' list of the traders' constituency. It is specifically contended in the said objections that as per the aforesaid provision a trader must have been holding licence and must have undertaken trading activity in the previous financial year. Thus, when the private respondents were not holding licences and have not undertaken trading activity in the previous financial year, their names be deleted from the voters' list.
18. In spite of the said objections taken by the petitioners, the Authorized Officer without making inquiry passed an order on 07.02.2018 and continued the names of private respondents and while passing the said order, the specific objection raised with regard to provisions of Section 11(1)(ii) of the Act was not dealt with by the Authorized Officer. Petitioners, therefore, filed the captioned petition before this Court.
19. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge by contending that the issue involved in the present Page 11 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER matter is squarely covered by the decision dated 22.07.2016 rendered by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.201 of 2016 and therefore the learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the petitioners before the competent authority under Rule 28 of the Rules. However, it is required to be noted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said decision would not be applicable. This Court, in the aforesaid order, observed in para 15 as under:
"15. Thus, in the present case, when the Authorized Officer has, after holding an inquiry, included the names of the present appellants in the final voters' list, the said decision of the Authorized Officer can be challenged under Rule 28 of the Rules by filing election petition before the appropriate authority. Thus, the learned Single Judge has wrongly exercised the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the Authorized Officer by which the names of the present appellants were included."
20. At this stage, it is further required to be noted that in the order dated 22.07.2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.201 of 2016, this Court has also reproduced the relevant paragraphs of another decision rendered on 01.07.2016 in Letters Patent Appeal No.569 of 2016. In para 10 and 11 of the order dated 01.07.2016 in Letters Page 12 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER Patent Appeal No.569 of 2016, this Court observed as under:
"10. As it is not in dispute that precisely it is the case of the appellant in this case that their names were wrongly excluded is certainly a ground which can be agitated by way of election petition under Rule 28 of the Rules.
11. From reading of the provision under Section 11 (1)(i) of the Act read with Rule 8 of the Rules, it is also clear that as per the provision under Section 11(1)
(i) of the Act, only members of the managing committee of primary agricultural credit cooperative society dispensing agricultural credit in market area alone are eligible for inclusion for holding elections to the agriculturist constituency of the market committee.
Further from the reading of Rule 8 of the Rules, it is also clear that when objections are filed under Rule 8(1) of the Rules, it is always open for the authorized officer to hold an inquiry that whether such proposed members of the managing committee are the members of primary agricultural credit cooperative society or not and whether such primary agricultural credit cooperative society is involved in dispensing of agricultural credit in the market area or not. The authorized officer may not go into fullfledged inquiry but so as to consider that such nominated members of the particular agricultural society fit into the electorate as contemplated under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act, can make an inquiry into it. There cannot be any straitjacket formula on the scope of Page 13 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER inquiry under Rule 8(2) of the Act with reference to eligibility of the electorate under Section 11(1)(i) of the Act, but it is a matter to be decided by the election officer having regard to the facts of each case. When it is an objection of the objector that the appellant society is not dispensing agricultural credit in the market area, preliminary inquiry is always permissible by authorized officer under Rule 8(2) of the Rules to that limited extent. Further when electrotate under Section 11 (1)(i) of the Act are members of the primary agricultural credit cooperative society dispensing agricultural credit in the market area, it is also open for the authorized officer to examine whether such societies are primary agricultural credit cooperative societies or not which are involved in dispensation of agricultural credit in the market area. While we are in agreement with the view taken by the earlier Division Bench on the restricted scope of inquiry in the case of Shrutbandhu Himatlal Popat (supra), we hold that such finding in the inquiry is to be recorded on the basis of the material placed before the authorized officer having regard to the facts of each case. Such order which is passed by considering the material placed before the authorized officer, cannot be said to be an order passed without jurisdiction or extraordinary circumstances as held by Full Bench of this Court in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited (supra), so as to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the remedy available under Rule 28 of the Rules........"
21. Thus, from the aforesaid decision, it is Page 14 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER revealed that the Authorized Officer has to make necessary inquiry and has to record the finding on the basis of the material placed before him. When such order is passed by considering the material placed before the Authorized Officer, it cannot be said to be an order without jurisdiction or extraordinary circumstance as held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited. This Court has, therefore, observed that when the Authorized officer, after holding an inquiry, included the names of the concerned appellants in the final voters' list, the said decision of the Authorized Officer can be challenged under Rule 28 of the Rules by filing election petition.
22. However, in the present case, as discussed hereinabove, when the specific objections are raised by the petitioners before the Authorized Officer pointing out the fact that the private respondents have obtained the licences in October-November, 2017 and they have not traded in the previous financial year, as per the provisions contained in Section 11(1)(ii) of the Act, it is the duty of the Authorized Officer to make necessary inquiry with regard to such objections and to give specific findings on such objections. However, while passing the order dated 07.02.2018 the objections raised by the Page 15 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER petitioners are not specifically dealt with and therefore learned Single Judge allowed the petition and gave necessary directions to the Authorized officer by remanding the matter to him. Thus, we are of the view that order dated 22.07.2016 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.201 of 2016 would not render any assistance to the present appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is not in dispute that the private respondents got licences only on October-November, 2017 and have not traded in previous financial year.
23. In the case of Dolatbhai Prabhubhai Dumaniya (supra), a Division Bench of this Court observed in para 24 and 25 as under:
"24.The attempt was made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to contend that once the process of election has begun, this Court in exercise of powers under Section 226 of the Constitution may not interfere with the election and the petitioners may have the remedy, if available, after the election is over as per Rule 28 of the Rules. In our view, the said contention is answered in the decision of this Court in the case of Kalubhai Ranabhai Akbari (supra) and more particularly, the observations made in paragraph 32 of the said decision. We may also refer to another decision of this Court in the case of Shrutbandhu H. Popat v. State of Gujarat and others, reported Page 16 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER in 2007 (3) GLR 1942 and the observations made at paragraphs 27 to 29, which read as under :
"27. We may now deal with the decision of the Full Bench heavily relied upon by Mr. B. S. Patel for the APMC in Daheda Group Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited (supra) decided on 27.4.2005. The following questions were referred to the Full Bench in the context of elections to the APMCs and the scope of Rule 28 of the APMC Rules constituting the Election Tribunal for deciding disputes relating to elections to APMCs:
I. Whether a person whose name is not included in the Voters' List can avail provisions of Rule 28 of the rules by filing election petition?
II. Whether the remedy under Rule 28 can be termed to be efficacious remedy?
III. Whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable in an election process challenging an order issued by the Election Officers I.e. inclusion or deletion of the names of the voters in the Voters' List? After considering various decisions of the Apex Court and also the decisions of various Benches of this Court, the Full Bench answered the Reference as under:
I. A person whose name is not included in the voters' list can avail benefit of provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules by filing Election Petition.
II. As the authority under Rule Page 17 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER 28 has wide power to cancel, confirm and amend the election and to direct to hold fresh election in case the election is set aside, remedy under Rule 28 is an efficacious remedy.
III. Even though a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable though alternative remedy is available, the powers are to be exercised in case of extraordinary or special circumstances such as where the order is ultra vires or nullity and / or ex facie without jurisdiction. The exclusion or inclusion of names in the voters' list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such questions are to be decided in an Election Petition under Rule 28 of the Rules.
28. Reading the entire decision of the Full Bench reveals that the question in the context of which the Full Bench was called upon to consider the controversy about maintainability of the petition was whether a member of the Managing Committee of a particular cooperative society was entitled to vote in his capacity as a member of the managing committee of such cooperative society and not merely by virtue of inclusion or deletion of his name in/from the voters list. The contention of the authorities in the said case was that the election petition under Rule 28 provides remedy for resolution of all Page 18 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER facets of the dispute as to whether the name of a person being the member of the Managing Committee of a particular cooperative society should be permitted to participate in the election if he ceases to hold the post on the date of the election program. Similarly the question whether a particular cooperative society is dispensing agricultural credit or not would be ordinarily be a disputed question of fact. There cannot, therefore, be any dispute with the proposition that ordinarily the exclusion or inclusion of names from/in the voters' list can be challenged in an election petition under Rule 28 of the Rules, after the elections are held. But the Full Bench also held that the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may be exercised in case of extraordinary or special circumstance such as where the order is ultra vires or nullity and/or exfacie without jurisdiction. The Full Bench also followed the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar, 2000 (8) SCC 216 and Manda Jaganath vs. K S Rathnam, AIR 2004 SC 3600 laying down that any decision in the election process is open to judicial review on the ground of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of powers and that special situation justifying exercise of writ jurisdiction would mean correcting an error having the effect of interfering in the free flow of the scheduled election or error having the effect of hindering the progress of election.Page 19 of 23
C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER
29. After the above decision of the Full Bench rendered on 27.4.2005, in Pundlik vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on 25.8.2005 and reported at 2005 (7) SCC 181, the Apex Court held that though preparation of list of voters is one of the stages of election and that normally the High Court would not interfere in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution at the stage of preparation of list of voters, but such action must be in accordance with law. In the said decision, the Apex Court distinguished their decision in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Santha vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (8) SCC
509. In Shri Sant Sadguru's case objections against publication of provisional electoral roll of the Society were filed which were considered by the Collector and disposed of. The final electoral roll was published on 2.7.1999. Election program was drawn by him on 21.10.1999. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the election program and the Apex Court held that the High Court should not stay continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged irregularity or breach of the Rules while preparing the electoral roll.
However, in the Pundlik case, the original petitioner had taken immediate action on receiving the fax message from the Collector."
25.Hence, when the action is ultra vires to the power or nullity or ex-facie Page 20 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER without jurisdiction, which is in the present case as that of Authorised Officer, we find that it would be an extraordinary or special circumstance which would call for interference in exercise of powers under Section 226 of the Constitution to maintain sanctity of the election and more particularly, for maintenance of sanctity of the election to be held, by upholding the democratic principles in a free and fair manner."
24. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited v. Workmen of Narendra & Company, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340, discussed about the scope while dealing with intra-court appeal. It is held that in intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless Appellate Bench concludes that findings of Single Judge were perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another or better view is possible, order of learned Single Judge should not be interfered with.
25. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that when the Authorized Officer while passing the order dated 07.02.2018 had not dealt with the objections raised by the petitioners Page 21 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER after making inquiry as per the Rules and when the learned Single Judge has exercised the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by quashing the said order and remanding the matter to the Authorized Officer to consider the objections of the petitioners afresh, we do not find any illegality in the said order.
26. The learned advocate Mr. Dipan Desai has placed on record the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Authorized Officer pursuant to the impugned order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, the objections of the petitioners are properly dealt with and names of most of the private respondents in the petition are deleted. It is required to be noted that the present appellants have not challenged the consequential order passed by the Authorized Officer on 22.03.2018. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval D. Vyas has placed reliance upon the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and contended that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not correct, this Court can certainly quash and set aside the consequential order passed pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the Page 22 of 23 C/LPA/383/2018 CAV ORDER learned Single Judge has not committed any error while passing the impugned order and therefore in absence of challenge to the consequential order dated 22.03.2018 before the appropriate forum, no relief can be granted in this appeal. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decisions upon which the reliance is placed by the learned advocate Mr. Vyas would not render any assistance to the appellants.
27. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the date of the election was 05.04.2018 and the learned advocates concluded their arguments only on 03.04.2018. Thus, now the election is already over on 05.04.2018.
28. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of overall facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge in the captioned petition. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, civil application does not survive and stands disposed of.
(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) Jani Page 23 of 23